Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 24 WASHAPP 811 - State v. Norman

State v. Norman’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
August 2003
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 2003

5 state decisions

301979198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on State v. Funk · State ex rel. Jones v. Gay · Black v. Yoder

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Any party to or any attorney appearing in any action or proceeding in a superior court, may establish such prejudice by motion, supported by affidavit that the judge before whom the action is pending is prejudiced against such party or attorney, so that such party or attorney cannot, or believes that he cannot, have a fair and impartial trial before such judge: PROVIDED, That such motion and affidavit is filed and called to the attention of the judge before he shall have made any ruling whatsoever in the case, . . . and before the judge presiding has made any order or ruling involving discretion . . . and in any event, in counties where there is but one resident judge, such motion and affidavit shall be filed not later than the day on which the case is called to be set for trial....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “arraignment of the accused... shall not be construed as a ruling ... within the meaning of this proviso...[.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “assure the court sufficient time to arrange for a visiting judge to preside over a defendant's trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.